A year or so after I became a pastor I purchased this picture. You can come up later for a closer look but it shows an elderly pastor in his library. He’s on a step ladder engrossed in a book he’s pulled off an upper shelf. Underneath the picture Paul’s charge to Timothy is printed. It’s where Paul says to the young pastor, “STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a WORKMAN that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)
This picture hangs at the top of the stairs leading to my office. It’s the first thing I see when I come in every morning. I bought it and hung it there because as a new pastor I had come to a realization about my main task—preaching. I learned that—for me at least—it required a lot of STUDY—a lot of WORK. I mean I could relate to that word “workman” that Paul used—and I still can. Sermons don’t just pop out of my head. I have to work hard every day—constantly seeking God’s help. Plus—preparing a sermon requires that I have a good library like the old guy in the picture and my shelves are high enough that I even need a little step ladder.
I’m not trying to brag. I’m just saying that for me to preach or teach RIGHTLY—CORRECTLY—requires almost constant study. And the point I’m making is that STUDY is important for not just pastors—but all who would seek to understand and teach the Bible—because, without study—God’s Word of truth can be taught WRONGLY.
In fact, entire religions claim to be based on the Bible—but the fact is they are basing their teachings on WRONGFULLY dividing or INCORRECTLY teaching God’s Word. I’m thinking of faith systems like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. But even Christians have been known to get things wrong when it comes to teaching the Bible. For example, in John 3 our Lord tells Nicodemus that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Well, there are churches who use that text to say you can’t go to Heaven without being baptized and that is not RIGHTLY dividing this text. It’s clear by the contest that Jesus was referring to PHYSICAL birth—which any mom will tell you is of water. Jesus was telling Nicodemus that you have to be born physically AND spiritually. Plus—a deeper study of the Bible shows us Jesus could not be talking about baptism here because He promised the thief next to Him that he would be in Heaven—and of course that thief was never baptized.
Well, as I said last week, my goal in this series is to study what God’s Word says about men and women so as to avoid wrong teaching on this subject. And to do that we need to understand an important “preacher word”— HERMENEUTICS. The principle of hermeneutics says that to understand a Scripture you have to interpret it historically, grammatically, and contextually.
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning. When we talk about contextual interpretation we’re saying to fully understand a text you must look at other texts—you must look at the preponderance of evidence in Scripture—not just any one isolated passage. In short—you have to STUDY.
And before we go any further I want to remind you of my sources. As I said last week, they are three: Shirley Stephen’s A New Testament View of Women, Grenz and Kjesbo’s Women in the Church, and FOREMOST a set of Bible Studies conducted by John Ortberg in 1999.
Okay, here’s an example of what I’m getting at when I talk about context. In 1st Peter 2:18, Peter writes: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect–not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” Well, in the debates about slavery in the South 150 years ago, southern Christians would sometimes point to this verse and say, “It’s right there in the Bible. Slaves, obey your master. The Bible is pro-slavery.” And that WRONGFUL teaching caused a lot of hurt for a lot of people for a long time. Our nation still suffers from the wounds caused by that teaching. Another thing pro-slavery people pointed to back then to justify this evil practice is the fact that the Bible never says anyplace, “Slavery is a bad institution, so get rid of it.” I’m saying there were CHRISTIANS 150 years ago who said the BIBLE taught slavery was a God-honoring practice.
Thankfully the great moral force behind abolition was also Christian—overwhelmingly so. For example there was William Wilberforce and John Newton and Frederick Douglas who devoted their lives to ending slavery. They believed that when you look at that verse in context and when you look at the whole of Scripture—the preponderance of evidence in the Bible—it leads to the conclusions that all of human beings should be free.
Think about this principle of hermeneutics like A GIANT SCALE. On one side of the scale, you could put verses like 1st Peter 2:18 that APPEAR to be pro-slavery. But on the other side of the scale, you’d put TONS of Scripture that is ANTI-slavery. For example there’s the passage we looked at last week from Genesis where it says, “All human beings are created in the image of God.” We all carry that dignity—no matter what the color of our skin. Then look at God’s prophets like Isaiah and Amos and others—whose writings burn with righteous indignation fueled by God’s hatred of oppression and injustice. Look at the Book of Acts where you see this radical equality in the new community—starting on Pentecost where people from all nationalities put their faith in Jesus. Look at the Book of Philemon where Paul writes to Philemon: “Receive Onesimus back, not as a slave but as a dear brother.” Look at Galatians 3:28 where Paul writes, “There is now neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Well, Christians like Wilberforce who fought for freedom said, “If you look at the preponderance of evidence in Scripture, if you take into account the whole text—if you study to show yourself a workman who RIGHTLY DIVIDES God’s Word of truth, then clearly slavery is NOT consistent with God’s will for the human race.”
Okay—let’s take this principle and apply it our subject, What about the hermeneutics of it all when it comes to men and women? What does the Bible, RIGHTLY DIVIDED, say about all this? Now, those who are opposed to women in ministry generally appeal to three passages: 1st Corinthians 11:2 and following; 1st Corinthians 14:34-35; and 1st Timothy 2:11-15. And we’ll look at each of those texts in a little while but before we do I want to remind you of some of the verses we looked at last week—so as to give us a better idea of the PREPONDERANCE of Scripture on this issue. I’m thinking of the things I said about God’s original intent in creation when he made human beings in His own image, male AND female, and gave them CO-dominion over creation. And then do you remember what I said about the loss of oneness that came in with the Fall and the beginning of inequality when fallen man began to rule over fallen woman? Then factor in what we saw when it comes to the leadership roles of women like Deborah and Huldah and Miriam—and the radical new attitude towards women that Jesus displayed—which was so different than anything else going on in His day. Add in verses like Galatians 3:28 and Paul’s lists of spiritual gifts—where there is no mention of distinctions based on gender. I mean, Paul doesn’t say men get some gifts and women get others. The point I want to make this morning is that the preponderance of evidence in Scripture is for the full participation of men and women in ministry. The scale is weighed in that direction.
Plus—I have found that we look at the cultural setting, the grammar—not to mention the context we see that God does not limit women to certain roles.
But before we get to those three passages—I want to start where we ended last week and look a wee bit further at the roles that women played in the New Testament church. So, turn in your Bibles to Acts 1:14. And again, I hope you have a Bible with you. If you don’t, please be sure to look on with someone or look at the screens. In fact, I have to warn you—I don’t have many jokes or illustrations in today’s message because this morning we are STUDYING to show ourselves as WORKERS approved by God that need not be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING His Word of truth. So—if you like, join me and roll up your sleeves. Get a pencil out. Let’s get to WORK.
Okay, the book of Acts tells us that after Jesus ascended, while the believers were waiting for Pentecost, His disciples would meet regularly in an upper room—maybe it was the SAME upper room where they shared the Passover Meal prior to His arrest and crucifixion. As verse 14 says: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” Please note—according to Dr. Luke, women, as well as men, are part of this community–waiting for the church to be born. Then on Pentecost it is born! The Holy Spirit is poured out on EVERYONE meeting in that upper room and Peter gets up and makes one of the most important speeches in the history of the church. Look at Acts 2:16 and 17 and note the Old Testament prophecy that Peter uses to explain what’s going on at Pentecost. I mean the people in Jerusalem who heard all this wondered what was up. Some said the disciples—male and female—were drunk but Peter says, “No—that’s that what’s going on. What you are seeing and hearing is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit on ALL people. Your sons and DAUGHTERS will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men AND WOMEN. I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.’”
In his sermon on Pentecost Sunday Peter uses the Old Testament as a reminder of God’s promise given through Joel that He would pour out his Spirit on all flesh—male and female—and that there would come a Spirit-inspired prophetic ministry that would include both men and women. This would be PROOF of the coming of the Holy Spirit. In fact, that could only happen by the power of the Holy Spirit. No other power could break down cultural barriers like that. And that’s exactly what continued to happen. Acts 21:9 tells us about four women, four daughters of Philip, who prophesied. They had the ministry of prophecy.
NOW—I want to stop here to say a word or two about what prophecy involves—because some people read texts like these and say that, yes, women could prophesy, but that that did not involve authoritative teaching. But that’s not RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Scripture. This view is not the product of GOOD Bible study and this is where GRAMMATICAL interpretation is helpful.
You see, the word prophecy comes from the Greek word “propheteuo,” which means to speak the authoritative Word of God.
Okay, let’s get to some CONTEXTUAL interpretation. Look at 1st Corinthians 14. In verse 3 Paul says, “Everyone who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening—encouragement and comfort. Those who speak in a tongue edify themselves, but those who prophesy edify the church.” So according to Paul, to prophesy is to edify, build up the saints.
Look down at verse six, “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy—or word of instruction?” In these four phrases — revelation, knowledge, prophecy, word of instruction — Paul is not making sharp distinctions. There are some nuances attached to each one of these words, but they’re largely overlapping terms that have to do with the building up of the Body. Okay—look at verse 31, “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed or TAUGHT, and encouraged.” In other words, the result of prophecy is learning and instruction. There is a teaching function to it. And women were doing this for men and women in the early church.
Now take your textbook—the Bible—and turn to Acts 18:18 where we meet a woman by the name of Priscilla. It says “Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila.” I want you to note that the ORDER of names in ancient Greek literature was very significant. Whoever is named FIRST is considered the one in charge—the superior of the two. For instance, in Paul’s or rather SAUL’S early days, before he became the leader of the mission, his name would be mentioned second like “Barnabas and Saul.” But once he matured into the great missionary we all know and love his name was always mentioned first. Paul and Barnabas or Paul and Silas. Well in that culture, husbands were virtually always mentioned first because they had higher status and we still see that even in our day and age. For example, if you’re writing a letter to a married couple, how do you address it? Mr. and Mrs. Former Redlander Randy Werts, whose wife, Dana, is now a Methodist Pastor once joked with me that their mail comes addressed to “Mr. and Rev. Werts.”
Well, as we just saw, when we first meet this couple in Acts 18, Aquila—the husband—his name is mentioned first. But now as it gets into their ministry, PRISCILLA’S name is mentioned first. Look at verse 24. “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When PRISCILLA and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately,” and they instructed him. Notice that even though Apollos is called “well-versed in Scripture,” he is receiving authoritative instruction from a woman. And there’s nothing in this text to suggest that she was doing it under the authority of her husband. If anything, because of the order of names, it suggests that her husband was doing it under her leadership. Any way you look at it, this was an extraordinary thing for a woman in that time.
Some say that Pricilla was the author of the book of Hebrews—which is why no name is listed. I still tend to think it was Paul—but I can see why people would say that.
Okay turn to Romans 16. In Romans 16, Paul is writing to honor many people in the church, and in this passage many of the people he honors are women—again revolutionary for his time. In Romans 16:1, Paul says, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant—or deacon—it could be translated either way—“of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.”
Now, these are remarkable words about a woman in those days because this was the standard introduction for somebody BEARING A LETTER. So as I told you several years ago, it is very likely that Phoebe was the one carrying the letter to the church at Rome. She was the one that hand delivered this book to the church at Rome. And the custom of that day was that whoever was CARRYING the letter would be called on to EXPLAIN anything in the letter that wasn’t clear to the people reading it. Now, if you’ve ever studied the Book of Romans, imagine being the one that people expected to answer the question: “What did Paul mean when he said Jesus bore the curse for the fall? What did Paul mean when he said that ALL have sinned? What about the wages of sin being death but the free gift of God eternal life? Tell us about that Phoebe.” Now—whether or not she delivered the letter, I’m saying that in commending Phoebe in this way Paul underscores her authority and competence.
Okay back to verse one where we’re told Phoebe is—a “diakonos” a word that can be translated “servant” or “deacon.” It can mean literally servant but as a general rule when Paul uses it for a specific person, he almost always does so in the sense of a minister of the gospel, an office in the church. So Phoebe wasn’t just a servant. She held the office of DEACON. And the context supports this. I mean why would Paul commend a Christian for having a servant attitude. We’re ALL supposed to do that. It makes more sense that Phoebe held this OFFICE. Okay—look down at verse seven because another remarkable woman is mentioned and I for one was very surprised when I first read this. Paul says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles.” Now, Andronicus is a male name; Junia is a feminine name. So these two individuals—including a WOMAN—are counted as apostles—OUTSTANDING among the apostles. APOSTLE was pretty much the highest title that could be had in the early church. Your translation may say “Junias” — masculine— but “JUNIA” FEMALE—This is how it appears in the oldest manuscripts—the ones closest to the originals.
So, we see scattered throughout the New Testament these glimpses of women doing extraordinary things in the church—very different from the kind of thing happening outside them in the culture.
Okay—as promised I want us to look now at the three texts that pose the greatest difficulties to allowing women full participation in the life and the work of the church.
(1) The first is 1st Corinthians 11:2-16.
Paul writes, “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head was shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man—neither was man created from woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”
I’m sure all kinds of questions are forming in your heads but hang in there. Let’s keep going:
“In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about his, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.”
Now—I think it’s obvious that much of what Paul writes here relates to a cultural situation and I’m referring to all the hair length and head wear stuff. I mean, Corinth was a city full of sexual sin—including tons of temple prostitutes who served the false goddess Aphrodite. The way you could spot one of these prostitutes is they didn’t cover their heads and Paul didn’t want CHRISTIAN women to be confused with prostitutes. It’s kind of like when we take a mission trip—we have clothing rules so as to make sure we don’t do anything to conflict with our message. We don’t wear clothes that we may accept here in the US but that are offensive in those countries. But the main thing I want you to note here is that Paul is expressly AFFIRMING public ministry for women. In this text, Paul is saying that women SHOULD pray and PROPHESY—and remember PROPHESY means delivering God’s message to the congregation—in a public setting. They just have to cover their heads when they do so.
Some people argue that they should only do this for other women but not for mixed groups. But clearly from the context where Paul talks about the need to wear veils and so on, he is talking about a congregation with men and women in it.
Now let’s look at the word “head.” In Greek it’s pronounced “kephale.” We get words like electroencephalogram from it, which have to do with reading brain waves etc. I think it helps us get a good understanding of Paul’s use of “kephale” here by looking at what he wrote in Ephesians 5—where he talks about husbands being head of their wives as Christ is head of the church—and then he goes on to define that kind of headship as a sacrificial one—not a dictator deal—but a sacrificial headship. We’ll talk more about that in two weeks. But Ortberg and others also point out that Paul wasn’t necessarily endorsing the RULING of men over women as much as he was acknowledging the cultural truth that they lived in a society—where husbands were over wives just as masters were over slaves. Paul acknowledges this without saying either example of RULING is the best expression of God’s will.
Okay, let’s move on. In verse seven it says that woman is the glory or reflection of man. Does that mean that she is lower than him? I don’t think so because that is the exact same expression is used in the Old Testament to say, “Saul is the glory of Israel,” where it’s a phrase of honor.
And, likewise, in verses eight and nine where it talks about woman being made for the sake of man, it does not imply lower status or function. I think it’s similar to the “helper” business that we read about in Genesis last week. Woman was made for the sake of man so the two of them together could experience community which man could not have experienced on his own. But in verses 11 and 12, Paul gets to his ultimate point. Take a look at it again, verse 11: “In the Lord, however”—now in this new community of Christ—“woman is not independent of man—nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”
Paul is talking about the interdependence of men and women expressed now in public ministry for BOTH. He’s talking about how we combine our differences to make a team.
(2) Okay, let’s look at our second text: 1st Corinthians 14:34-35.
Paul writes, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something—they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” The obvious problem that this text raises is how do you reconcile it with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 just a couple paragraphs earlier—where he says women should prophesy and pray out loud in church. Some people say, “Well, you don’t reconcile them. They just contradict each other.” But that doesn’t work for me because I believe in the authority of Scripture so that’s not an option. The Bible DOESN’T contradict itself when it is RIGHTLY DIVIDED.
Others say that in the prior passage—1st Corinthians 11, Paul was not referring to the church but to being in a small group setting. The problem with that line of thought is the fact that being in church was different in the early church than it is in our day. They didn’t have auditoriums or buildings like we do. ALL churches were house churches. In any case, as I said last week, you can disagree with me but I believe that Paul is addressing a particular situation here. Think of it. At this point in time, women were able to learn and I said, this was a revolutionary thing in the culture. So what probably was going on in is that women were doing something they hadn’t been able to do before Jesus came—namely ASK QUESTIONS. In their eagerness to learn they were raising their hands so much that that were disrupting the learning experience for everybody.
Imagine how disruptive it would be to you if all through my sermons, half the people in this room were turning to somebody else saying, “What does Mark mean by that?” It would be a lot harder to follow my sermons than it already is. If that kind of disorder were going on, it would be impossible. So I think Paul is saying, “They must stop disrupting and ask these questions at home.”
Okay—what does Paul mean when he says that, “They must be silent as the Law says?” This is especially hard to understand because nowhere in the Old Testament is there a law or a writing that says, “Women must be silent.” Most likely Paul is referring to the general Old Testament teaching that worshipers and learners should be silent and submissive before God—that this is the appropriate posture of learning. It’s like Psalm 46 where God says, “Be still—and know that I am God.”
(3) Okay—let’s work on. Turn to the third passage: 1st Timothy 2:9 and following.
Paul says, “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds—appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived—it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Now Paul gives a number of commands in this passage, and the question is how do we APPLY them? Take a look again at verse nine: “I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” Just take a look around this room for a minute at the women who are here. Any braided hair? Any gold jewelry? Any wedding rings at all? Paul says no gold, no pearls, no expensive clothes. I won’t to ask for a show of hands, but how many of you are in violation on this? Well why? Why are you disobeying these commands!?
All kidding aside, there’s another key hermeneutical principle here. In rightly dividing the Bible—-in correctly studying its words, we must distinguish between UNIVERSAL principles—that which applies in all times, in all places—and LOCAL applications that have to do with a particular situation or culture. We must distinguish between that which is universal and that which is RESTRICTIVE to a local situation. Just to make sure you have those categories straight, I’ll give you a test. I’ll run through a few different commands in Scripture. I’ll ask you to say out loud—is the command universal or is it restrictive? Okay, here we go:
- “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Universal or restrictive? Universal.
- 1st Corinthians 7:1, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Are you really that unsure? That would be restrictive. I sure hope that would be restrictive. I have 3 kids!
- Micah 6:8, “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” Universal or restrictive? It’s universal.
- 1st Timothy 5:23, “Take a little wine for your stomach.” Don’t be nervous—no one is going to check your refrigerators or see if you have a wine rack at home.Restricted would be the answer we’re looking for there.
My point is that in the Bible there are UNIVERSAL principles and LOCAL applications. The problem is it’s not always easy to tell which is which. People a lot smarter than me pray and STUDY and work real hard to try to distinguish that, so I don’t want to make it sound like it’s easy. It’s not. That’s why very sincere Christians disagree sometimes over issues like this one. In any case, my point here is we have to apply cultural sensitivity to verses 9 through 15. You can’t just blindly pick and choose and say, “Well, that verse doesn’t apply today, but that verse DOES apply today,” for no particular reason. No you have to WORK—study to RIGHTLY DIVIDE these tough texts!
Okay in this last text the first thing I want to point out is in verse 11 in this text where Paul literally says, “Let a woman learn.” Learn is a verb, and it’s in the form of the IMPERATIVE. There were different Greek moods for verbs: the indicative was simply a statement of fact. The imperative was a command. It says something must happen, or to quote Jean Luke Piccard, “Make it so!” That’s the form that Paul uses here of learn. Paul doesn’t just say women CAN be allowed to learn now. Paul is stating a command: “Women MUST learn. MAKE IT SO.” It’s in the imperative form. Remember, this is against the background in which women were virtually uneducated. Paul is saying, “This is to stop in the new community. Women must learn.” Then he goes on to describe how women should learn: in all quietness and submission. And the question here is to whom? Quietness and submission to whom? One answer is husband. That’s one theory but Paul doesn’t say this, and if he did it would leave out unmarried women. So I think probably Paul is saying here that women should have an appropriate attitude of a learner to one’s teacher and to the subject matter. ANYONE has to do this to learn. Now in verse 12 Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” Note that Paul does NOT use the imperative here. It’s a statement not a command. Plus it’s in the PRESENT tense so I would translate it, “I am not currently permitting” which, according to the hermeneutical principle would point to a current condition—it would be restricted to a local SITUATION. You see, like Corinth, Ephesus was a sexually immoral city. Note Paul did not give guidelines for women in other cities where he started churches—cities like Thessalonica or Philippi.
In this case, Paul’s point would be that the women in Ephesus must learn before they can teach. And they haven’t learned yet so, of course, they can’t teach yet. He is warning that women at Ephesus are not to use their newfound status as learners to try to usurp the teacher’s place—before they even understand what it is they’re trying to learn. Now, in verses 13 and 14, Paul appeals to the creation account. And this is important because some say that since he appeals to Adam and Eve, it’s not just a local, cultural issue. They say the command is universal. But Paul is not saying that women are more to blame than men as grounds for all women being limited in what they can do in the church. And I say that because in Romans 5 Paul says that sin entered the world not through a woman, but through a man. I think Paul is using what happened in Eden here as an example of what he’s guarding against in Ephesus, not as a proof text of why women should never teach. He’s saying that the woman in the garden had not received firsthand teaching about the prohibition of the tree from God, which Adam had. Adam had firsthand teaching—therefore she was more vulnerable. In a similar way, there were women in Ephesus who had not yet learned about the faith. They hadn’t received direct teaching. Therefore, they were not yet ready to become teachers. There IS a universal principle here, and it is that no one should aspire to teach when they haven’t yet learned.
Finally, in verse 15, there is an odd statement. “But women will be saved through childbearing— if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” Now what exactly does he mean by that? There are several different theories, and nobody is sure. Some people would say that what he’s saying here is that women ought to be fulfilling a domestic role—keeping barefoot and pregnant so to speak. But, of course, the difficulty with that interpretation is what about single women, those who don’t bear children? And doesn’t that become kind of a works-righteousness? You earn your way to salvation by bearing children and so on—that contradicts FOUNDATIONAL doctrines in the Bible—things Paul said over and over again. We are saved NOT BY works but by grace. My favorite theory is that Paul is saying that women—like all humanity can be saved through the most important birth—the birth of Jesus.